Avengers...Avenge! Or something!

So, I watched the new Avengers movie, you guys!

Actually, I did so two times, because I wanted to witness the difference between 2D and 3D first hand. Spoiler alert: Not much. I actually liked 2D better as it has better colour timing. On top of that the 3D is not very impressive, and the novelty quickly fades and you are just left with a ticket that was more expensive than a regular one.

There is not much to say about it in movie terms. It's a superhero movie, and if you have seen any of the preceding marvel movies you know what to expect. It's actually rather mediocre, which is not bad, it just means that it is not as good as the first one. The first movie seemed to get the characters better, and it was more exciting. The second one seems a bit tired, as if we have seen all this before, which of course we have.

Uncanny...

Remember when Gandalf sorta looked like a sprite from a video game ca. 1997 when getting off an eagle in the first part of the new trilogy? None of that stuff here. It's amazing to see how the fight scenes are choreographed, they are like one of those old paintings that seem to cover a whole battle at once, complete with all the details.

Neato!

It frequently feels like one of those, except in motion. It's very kinetic, it makes you dart your eyes round so as not to miss any details. It manages to give its characters weight, so you expect heavy crashes when they thump into each other or the ground or buildings or everything really. Still not a mean feat in CGI constructions, even in 2015. On the other hand, there is still the feeling that actors sometimes take a step back behind the CGI, simply because they are accomplishing things that no normal human, or indeed, superhuman, could. You can only see Tony Stark getting mangled in his Iron Man Suit so many times until you realise that he should be fucking dead. Every time the suit returns to the Avengers home base Tony should be flowing out of it like a particularly runny blood sausage


The plot is thus: The Avengers are attacking an old castle in some eastern-european part of the world because they want to snatch the sceptre Loki was using in the last movie to open a portal in the sky to invite aliens. Things go down south quickly:They loose the element of surprise, Hawkeye is wounded and Captain America is offended by the mid-battle cuss words his men and woman use. They manage to get the sceptre, but a mysterious stranger triggers Flashbacks in Stark (Iron Man), which will be familiar to those who have seen Iron Man 3 and the first Avengers movie. This PTSD leads him to use the power of the freshly acquired sceptre to fulfil an old dream of his: The creation of a supercomputer similar to Jarvis, but much more powerful in terms of processing power, that he images to become the ultimate guardian of the earth, as he feels it is far too vulnerable to danger. If you have read the Ultron storyline in the comics or have seen virtually any Sci-Fi Movie at all, you'll know what comes next: Ultron becomes sentient, draws all the wrong conclusions and decides to eradicate mankind. Been there, seen that, wrote the book. The true test is something else: This development causes frictions among the Avengers, who in no time are at each others throats.

I'd rather use this review as a jumping-off point to discuss the state of the superhero movie in general, because some things stood out throughout the movie, and I think they are actually symptomatic of genre in its current form.

If you discussed, let's say, Superman's chances of winning against Batman 15 years ago, you were a nerd. If you do the same thing now you are probably part of the audience in an Avengers movie, because otherwise there is just no explanation for why the first one made all the money in the world. Seriously, look it up, some of the poorer countries had to print extra money just so they were able to handle the accounting of the move. That's a true story, totes srzly!

Not now, though!

This has a peculiar effect: It draws attention to specific strengths and weaknesses of the heroes, and it invites comparisons of their respective power levels. The movie even does it itself, when the posse tries to lift Thor's Hammer, which is supposed to move only if you are...worthy!

                                             Mjolnir is soemtimes woefully indecisive

That leads to a problem: When going up against Ultron, the Avengers face vastly different challenges, which becomes ridiculous when Jeremmy Renner is wounded in the first five minutes and it just begs the question: Why isn't he wearing one of those fancy suits Bob Downey Jr. manufactures by the dozen?

On the other hand, the amount of damage characters in this movie take is frankly ridiculous. Case in point: Ultron is ultimately an Irton Man suit withouth the liabilities a human body inside brings with it. So he's fast, he's strong, he can fly and he can take a whole lot of punishment. What business does Captain America have going up against him mano a mano? He is even told by Hawkeye that he can't go up against him. Cap says Thank you, then proceeds to do just that. Ultron conveniently forgets all his advantages and Cap actually gets some hits in. Why would the ultra powerful Ultron even engage in such a fight? Why wouldn't he just carpet bomb Cap into jelly? He could just take him by the hand, fly really high, and then...just let go, I guess. Laugh it up a bit.

More ridiculous still: Ultron shoots Cap square in the chest with one of those convenient energy rays that seem to transmit a lot of kinectic power, but forego harm in favour of heavy breathing and maybe some vaguely described pain all throughout the body. What I'm getting at: Ultron would have won if he had just used a firearm. Fly 10 Meters up in the air, riddle him with bullets gangsta style, go home.

It's also jarring to see how characters sometimes shrug of these energy blasts, and then Scarlett Johansson just up and shoots some dudes really dead. It feels unfair, because everyone else seems to get off easy in contrast.

Of course, movies would be boring if characters always chose the best option. It's just that a movie with so many different characters, that's also drawing a lot of attention to these differences, simply begs us to ask. It's the age old question what business Batman does have in the Justice League. Also, Aquaman. As for the match mentioned above: Supes wins in the first round by charbroiling Batman from the moon.

Still, Thor is sometimes a bit of an asshole about the whole worthy schtick

But maybe the problem is with me, maybe those movies just aren't for me. Maybe I'm over thinking it.

Please say it'S not just me

So, go and watch the movie, it's still very much the Tony Stark show, and I guess that's fine, because Iron Man is what made us all watch these second wave of superhero movies, and so it's just a case of giving us what we like. If you can gloss over the things I mentioned, and the occasional bit of charachter assassination, you will be entertained.

And really, it's just worth it to see the movie for Ultron alone. He just plain funny and menacing, think of Kotor's HK 47, and you get the picture. The first scene in which he appears mangled and rambling, just having gained conscience, is seriously great stuff. Hats off to James spader, is waht I'm saying.

All in all, Age of Ultron is a fun movie, it's technically very accomplished, and certainly well worth your money.

To be or not to be...

First of all I want to apologise for the extreme delay between entries. I had one, actually two pieces that were almost done. But they turned out rather personal, and I haven't decided yet whether to put them up or not. For reference, one was about Moulin Rouge, the Baz Luhrman Movie, the other one concerned itself with Peter Jackson's last brainchild, the final part of the Hobbit trilogy.

But while the committee of s-writing.blogspot.com is out to decide whether to put up either one or just scrap them completely, they asked me to write something up that could go live in the rapidly ending 2014, so that we would not have to end that year on such a serious downer as a six week gap would be.

This is why I present you with Shakespeare's sonnet 116:

Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O no; it is an ever-fixed mark,
That looks on tempests, and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wandering bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come;
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.

That Shakespeare wasn't a solemn wordsmith contemplating the fate of humanity from an aloof vantage Point should be clear. If your English teacher has denied you all the sex and violence the m was capable of writing about (Shakespeare, not your teacher) you should seriously consider suing him.

It's also moot to talk about how much Shakespeare contributed to the English language .He invented the word Alligator, for example. In my mind, this is by far his most important contribution.

See you later....A. mississippiensis. See?

Now, if you are like me, when thinking of Shakespeare, you think of daggers in the Night, Soliloquies and of course famously Romeo and Juliet. I want to talk about the second Point. A soliloquy is the equivalent of pressing the pause-button in a Play. It allows a Protagonist to make his inner workings visible, his very thoughts spelled out directly. This allow the audience to better understand him, to evaluate his motives and sometimes it is just a way to get us up to Speed, when a character's Actions differ from his underlying Ambition and we wouldn't notice the dichotomy otherwise. It's different from a monologue because that is addressed to someone, even if it is the audience. Here's Ian McKellen doing one:

The thing is: We think that when those plays were staged it all sounded like good old Gandalf, and that they were the pinnacle of dignity and solemnity. Not so, you guys, not so.

If you read the poem above, you will notice that the bard of Avon rhymed proved with loved. Say it out loud, is that a good rhyme? Did Bill just fail to come up with a better one? Did he loose steam at the end and just called it a day?

Eh, good enough, old chap!

What is often forgotten when reading plays is that they are meant to be acted, and acting comes from action...I think? Don't quote me on that. The point is: It's not meant to be read, it's meant to be listened to. And because there's momentum to the proceedings on stage a lot of stuff just flies under the radar. But more importantly, language has changed since then, and at the time of writing loved rhymed with proved. Which implies that the actors reciting Shakespeare sounded more like your drunken Irish uncle (Don't you dare deny it!) than Magneto.

This in turn means that it's pretty hard to enjoy works of art out of their temporal context. One more example:

And so, from hour to hour, we ripe and ripe,
And then, from hour to hour, we rot and rot;
And thereby hangs a tale.

Scholars now surmise that hour actually means whore and ripe means rape...and rut means rut. So it's not so much about pondering one's immortality...but something else. I made no part of that up. Work of Art indeed.

So, in conclusion we can only  strive to appreciate works in their original form. Sometimes this means losing them completely. Think of how dated the pop culture references of the first Shrek movie feel even now. Now I don't want you to throw the wash out with the water, I just want to promote a more conscious approach, and the possibility to question from time to time accepted conventions.

PS: During the writing of this entry Autocorrect tried to change a misspelled Shakespeare into Hairspray. Is thereby hanging a tale, too?

The past is a foreign country...

...and they do things differently there.

This phrase has been taken from L. P. Hartley's 1953 novel "The Go-Between" and has almost become proverbial, further entrenched in our cultural memory by the 1970 film by the same name.

I haven't read the book, and I don't know if I want to, because that phrase always held a certain meaning for me, and I don't want that changed if my interpretation is considerably different from that of the author. By now I've remarked a few times on how people in the past were the same as us, only with a considerable, but sometimes also only slight, disadvantage in knowledge. Humans have externalised their intelligence (think books and other records), allowing us build upon what those before us have learnt instead of starting over every generation. We have done this through speech, and later we learnt to conserve the spoken word in many ways, a process that is still going on today. If (actually when) we die, as we tend to do seeing that we're rather squishy all thing considered, our knowledge is not lost. At least not entirely, as theoretical knowledge is still only one side of the coin that is complete education. The other one is practise. To get around that, we have institutionalised a systems of learning and passing on knowledge, namely schools, universities, apprenticeships and many more.

Not pictured: Useful externalised knowledge

This makes it easy to forget that in our hearts, or rather in our core of cores, our cells, we share the same genetic makeup with all those people from the past.

Yes indeed

I guess no one will deny that where you were born has a huge impact on who you become. If you're born in Alaska you'll learn to deal with the cold, if you're born in Africa you'll learn to deal with the heat, and if you're born in Australia you'll learn to deal with the whole continent down to the very ground itself outright trying to just fucking kill you. If you move you'll acquire a new set of skills, and also adapt some old ones. But just because your ancestors were dicks, you don't need to be one yourself. Also works the other way around. It's an age old debate, nature versus nurture, but what I just said applies to both, and the fact remains that one way or another we are a product of our environment. Bearing that in mind you'll see how externalised knowledge plays a big role in shaping us. As we grow older we learn to discern and to decide which outside influences we want to accept and which ones to reject. But at this point we had a whole lifetime, especially important because it includes our formative years, when we were shaped by others. And though they might have been meaning well, you still might end totally messed up, you guys. That makes it hard to be who you want to be. Hell, that's actually the easy part. It's harder to decide who you want to be.

But if we are that susceptible to outside influences when shaping our personality (and I absolutely maintain that we are) it's unfair to look down on others who didn't have the same room to grow as we arguably have today (at least in some parts of the world). And everything I said in the paragraph above also holds up when exchanging the word "where" for "when". Go ahead, try it. Which means that for the purpose of this article, when and where are synonymous, and that brings us full circle. It doesn't matter where or when, just how that place (or time) shapes you...which is why a foreign country might just as well be the past...and sometimes is.

Cheap shot

Now, indulge me a bit: There are stereotypes concerning practically every country of the world, and it runs even deeper than that. Try asking your grandparents  to tell some stories about the weirdos from the next village over. The Americans are stupid and fat (all of them? Really?), the Japanese like to purchase used panties from vending machines (they don't), the Germans are punctual, have stupid words and are into some weird porn (two out of three is not too bad), the British have weird teeth and make up for it in politeness (they actually have some of the best foodgnashers in the world) and the french are cowards and smell bad.

As you can see some of those are downright insulting and mean, and while I can't disprove all of them, I will shed some light on why the french might be accused of smelling. Spoiler alert: I've been there a few times, and I don't think they do. Unfotunately, I can't do anything about the cowardice-thing...Sorry, France.

A Frenchman, in a rare moment of not surrendering.

Now, from here on out, you are in serious danger of being grossed out, so don't say I didn't warn you!

Seriously, you guys.

Intertextuality

We have been talking about texts, manuscripts, inscriptions and other sources a lot. But I want to take it a step further still. Critical evaluation is one of the most important skills to master, and I'd argue that it gets more important by the day, seeing how all those Nigerian princes just Need your help to Transfer Money and holy crap do you really believe that?!

I've already touched on the Problem of trusting sources. Our main concern is the intent of the author. What was his Agenda, who was his superior, and how intimately acquainted was he with the subject he wrote about? History is written by the winners, and many texts serve only the purpose of degrading the opposing side. Many things we believe we know with absolute certainty don't hold up on closer scrutiny.

We all know the Story of emperor Nero and how he burnt down Rome and made a horse his adviser.

Also famous for sporting a rather ill-advised neck beard

The only Problem with that is that the accounts concerning him we have were based on a source not available to us anymore. The three main sources are Tacitus, Suetonio and Cassio Dio. Two of the accounts were written 50 years after Nero's death, and one 150 years later. There are sources portraying him in a better light, but they haven't gained the same widespread attention, and that's how his legacy was formed. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying we can't be sure.

Just for s*** and giggles, here is an excerpt of what Suetonis wrote about the guy in his book "the 12 Caesars": "about the average height, his body marked with spots and malodorous, his hair light blond, his features regular rather than attractive, his eyes blue and somewhat weak, his neck over thick, his belly prominent, and his legs very slender."

I mean, really, you guys? That would make him a troll. Is it actually genetically feasible for one person to be that fugly? Sorry for the language, but that sounds really gross, and consequently I have a hard time believing that Suetonius was unbiased. We don't know exactly when Suetonius was born, but it's rather improbable he ever met Nero...and that renders his descriptions of his physical appearance moot. He simply couldn't know what poor Nero smelled like. And if he believed others that only proves the point: He didn't check his facts properly.

Nero is alleged of doing all kinds of strange stuff: It is said (and by said I mean written in the Tora) he wanted to tear down the temple in Jerusalem, but was afraid of doing so himself, and although he believed god wanted him to do this he also thought that god would punish everyone actually following through with that. So he made a complicated plan which went like this and oh my god the whole story is so convoluted and mired in symbolism, I honestly don't get what he intended to do.

The point is that it's catchy, it resonates with what we know, namely that rich, powerful people sometimes are funny in the head. We don't understand them, and therefore it is easy to picture them doing all sorts of weird stuff.

Turns out you can't buy dignity

The Point is that while few sources survived he is still not exactly elusive by the standards of historical scholarship, and his life is rather well documented. He's never been to Jerusalem. The actual Point is that I should stop to belabour the phrase 'the point is', but the point is that at this point that's neither here nor there.

When evaluating a source you first need to look for other sources that support your primary source. You need to be sure neither one is forged. If you want to knwo wether Darwin ever visited the west Indies you could go though all the passenger lists of ships sailing there looking for his name. It's astounding what's available in this regard. Ususally minor differences can be reconciled, after all, people make mistakes. But overall a picture should emerge, and if it's not internally consistent, you  might have to try again.
Another criteria: Does the spelling fit the period of it's alleged creation? Are there words that should not have been available at the time of writing, and how are all the words spelled? In medieval Germany for a time every u was to be followed by an O which has sort of survived until today, leading to some People drawing a short line above their Us. If a text written during a period when this was common doesn't feature that oddity chances are something's wrong. Very easy example: A printed book dated to before when the printing press was invented.
 It is also possible to relate sources to each other through their writer. There might have been a guy always drawing hearts above his Is, and if that's a rare habit (it should be!) then texts containing that attribute are likely written by the same author. Also, if it's a rare Hobbit and you're troll don't try to cook it unless you are absolutely certain when the sun will rise.

Wow, what a Tangent. Not the Hobbit Thing, the whole article. But I think it's fun, although I may have gone overboard a few times. But I like it, and I think I'm actually hitting my stride the longer I write. The Goal of this blog is to write as much text as possible, and if it's fun that's the icing on the cake.

Thunderdome

Completely unexpected, I found myself with an evening's worth of free time, and decided to do something for the blog. I promised you pop culture, but up until now we have mostly talked about history. Therefore I chose a little movie called "Captain Thunder and the Holy Grails" and boy, did I choose wrong. I jumped into the movie completely on a whim without any information upfront. I was fooled by the title, thinking it could contribute something to the greater Topic of Arthuriana. It does not. Although it's still interesting from cultural perspective: If the world ended tomorrow and CTATHG would be the last of all our stories to survive, you'd have a great example of how history gets muddled up with popular stories, and how both are the worse for it.

Up to that point the movie is pretty good

Captain Thunder is a Spanish comic character, and an exceptionally successful one at that. He had a comic strip running from 1958 until 1967, there are several songs and movies about him, mostly in Spanish, ans also a video game. He's something like the Spanish Asterix, a notion upon which the Internet seems to agree with me. Captain Thunder is a knight-errant from Europe's 12th century and he goes on adventures with a core group of three other people. The term knight-errant and especially in connection with the European medieval period is going to feature heavily in the future of this blog. There is few to be found about him, and even fewer in English, so I had to rely mostly on the google translation of his wikipedia article.

Rock on, spanish guy I don't understand!

 
His most notable trait is his reluctance to use violence, of course he will if forded to. The first character from the above mentioned entourage is Goliath, and it's best to think of him as Spanish Bud Spencer with an eye patch. Next there is Crispin, who is from Northumbria, and is Thunder's squire. In an RPG you'd probably call him a rouge. The trio is completed by Sigrid, a viking princess, intended to turn the damsel in distress cliche on it's head. She and Thunder have a thing going, but won't marry. That actually makes it kind of political, as it was banned or censored in some countries where this was considered inappropriate.

Now, I think I can't postpone talking about the movie itself any longer, so let's get it out of the way.

The film starts in the middle of a crusade to the Holy Land, and the English knights advance on a fortress near Acre, where Sigrid is assumed to be held in a dungeon. It starts in media res, with the characters of Crispin and Goliath in jail, too. As they are about to be executed Thunder rescues them, and subsequently has to fight a prince of the fortress. He frees Sigrid and an old man called Juan de Ribeira, who gives him the Holy Grail he hid in his cell, and who is killed when none of the main characters is looking. Thunder is sent to Spain to escort princess Sigrid back to her father. They are ambushed by the Knights of Sir Black, and Sigrid is once again taken captive. Thunder learns from a monk (or somesuch) called Morgano that he is the son of the last of the knight charged with guarding the Holy Grail, and that his birthmark was why de Ribeira gave him the grail. Sir Black wants the grail to summon...something that'll give him even more power, although he already is terrorising the surrounding lands. Thunder is taken captive by a brainwashed Sigrid, in the ensuing fray Sir Black's men manage to steal an artifact from Morgano without which the grail is worthless, and which needs to be united with the grail before the....eclipse! They let  Thunder go, it seems they are afraid of his birthmark. He and his group try to instigate a revolt of the farmers around Sir Black's Castle, but fail. Crispin sneaks into the castle to provide a distraction and open a door. Morgano arrives with some balloons to firebomb (!) Sir Black's forces into submission (but not without getting mortally wounded), and Captain Thunder defeats Sir Black in one of the dumbest endings ever filmed. And of course Sigrid and Thunder kiss.

Now, if you think I made that sound boring and convoluted, thank you, because that's exactly what the movies was. There are movies which are good because they are bad, but this one is horrible because it's boring.

Thunder's violence eschewing trait does not seem to have made it into the movie, as he or his companions have certainly no qualms about killing. At first I thought it's a serious movie, but after I saw Crispin and Goliath bickering though their execution I realised that this is one of those movies where the good characters with names are never in any real danger. The action scenes are staged in a way that sucks all the tension out of them. They are too slow, and you can see the stuntmen do an evasive movie even before the attacker has begun the stroke, and it happens all the time. Goliath has virtually no personality besides "I'm big, I like to ea"t and his catchphrase, some thing along the lines "big green frogs!". Yeah, so that's a curse now. Crispin's got it worse, he has a thing about being small and being shy around women, the second one is only important when the movie bothers to remember. It also makes for one of the most misogynistic Goodbye scenes ever. Morgano might as well be called Captain Exposition, because he is nothing but a Deus Ex Machina to advance the plot (Cluing in Thunder, loosing the ruby needed by Sir Black) and save the heroes with his bomb squad of Balloons...Yeah, apparently that was a thing back then. Also, he seems to built those during one night, when they are spontaneously needed. Ho he did it so fast (or at all!) is anyone's guess. As I told you before, historical records are spotty sometimes, therefore I'll cut the film some slack on that matter. Not. In fact, I usually like that kind of steampunk (what punk is it if there's not even steam?), but in this case it jars horribly with the tone of the movie.  Towards the end I thought that there were some more characters of importance, as suddenly some emphasis was given to beard-guy with a distinctive axe fighting style, big bald guy, Scrawny guy with threads and Pony-tail. But as soon as I realised that, they were killed. Incidentally, Axe-guy and Bald-Guy are killed gruesomely in what was has up to that point been a practically bloodless movie. The final showdown in Sir Blacks Altar room is one of the stupidest things ever filmed. Thunder should at this point be dead three times over. When the floor gives way because of the ceremony he's started Sir Black starts choking Thunder, and we can see the big reveal, a monster lifted straight from Dune, advancing upwards through a hole over which the two are hovering. But instead of doing something, anything, Sir Black has the Grail taken out of it's hands by Thunder after what feels like hours, and is subsequently eaten by the giant worm. Exactly like that. He does not even fight for it or try to finish Thunder off. He had it coming. The actors are all nondescript, to put it positive. None of them seems to posses any emotional range. I have the feeling Sir Black would be played by Christoph Wals if this was a Tarantiono film, but then the rest would probably good too. There is one scene where the camera shakes so violently without any rhyme or reason it actually got nauseating. Also, Thunder goes to swim in another scene in his chain mail and armour plates. But that's easily explained, as those same pieces of armour seem to be mostly decorative any way, because at various point they offer no protection whatsoever, they are pierced, sliced and hacked conveniently every time some bad guy needs to die. I wonder why they bother to wear sthem, they must be cumbersome. So, moviemaking at it's worst.

In case you thought I was joking

On the other hand it's astounding what you can  do nowadays with a budget 5.5 Million. Most of the time the movie doesn't look bad, just bland, and the effects are pretty accomplished for what it is (one shot of a thrown spear shattering midair through magic looks pretty good), and I like most of the customs. Although the landscape is recycled for the Holy Land and Iberia (and you can see it), the shots of it are actually quite beautiful. In almost every scene you can see it's film set, but a nice one. The movie could have been salvaged and some fun if the actors were better. As it is, they are too serious for what the movies sets out to be, or what the source seems to demand.

I want to point out that I'm not judging about the comic strip itself, it's going on in fits and starts until the present day, and there has got to be a reason for that.

To be thorough I want to show the Spanish language poster. It's interesting because of the colour timing that suggests the Comic movie the international poster seems to be ashamed of. Also, there is another movie about a Captain Thunder. Of course, he's called the "Gay caballero" there, although it meant something different back then. It's from 1930, which means it's in the public domain. Presented with a choice, I'd recommend that one, based on the assumption that it can't be worse than this one, and might actually be pretty good. Also, free movie!

I had hoped Captain Thunder would have some kind connection to our actual topic, but as it stands it only gives us this blog's first mention of the Holy Grail, and we will have to contend ourselves with that. We will of course look further into this matter, as we will into knights, and especially the topic of chivalry.

I took the risk of that entry being boring consciously, as it provided an ability to write something, and I hope you liked it and had some fun anyway. Also, I didn't want those two hours of my life go to waste. Did I mention it's two hours? Because it is two hours and you feel every minute of it. As always, your Feedback is appreciated. And with that I leave you to ponder what productive things you could have done with the money that went into Captain Thunder. Also, this might now be the most encompassing (English speaking) source about Captain Thunder on the Internet. So there's that, too.

From the historia brittonum, as attributed to Nennius and translated by Giles

In some ways, this is going to be a rather long entry. In some others, it will be rather short. I decided to repeat a section of the historia brittonum (HB) in full, because it will make referencing them easier. But that advances the word count considerably, so I tried to keep my additions short. In light of all I already wrote here, of course I gave a full account of my sources, not claiming any of it as my own. As is to be expected, the details vary slightly with the translator, and the source manuscript, but not enough to warrant a discussion of each.

A picture from the Historia Brittonum, ca. 799, Gwynedd edition

 At that time, the Saxons greatly increased in Britain, both in strength and numbers. And Octa, after the death of his father Hengist, came from the sinistral part of the island to the kingdom of Kent, and from him have proceeded all the kings of that province, to the present period.

Then it was, that the magnanimous Arthur, with all the kings and military force of Britain, fought against the Saxons. And though there were many more noble than himself, yet he was twelve times chosen their commander, and was as often conqueror.

The first battle in which he was engaged, was at the mouth of the river Gleni.[73] The second, third, fourth, and fifth, were on another river, by the Britons called Duglas,[74] in the region Linuis. The sixth, on the river Bassas.[75] The seventh in the wood Celidon, which the Britons call Cat Coit Celidon.[76] The eighth was near Gurnion castle,[77] where Arthur bore the image of the Holy Virgin,[78] mother of God, upon his shoulders, and through the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the holy Mary, put the Saxons to flight, and pursued them the whole day with great slaughter.[79] The ninth was at the City of Legion,[80] which is called Cair Lion. The tenth was on the banks of the river Trat Treuroit.[81] The eleventh was on the mountain Breguoin, which we call Cat Bregion.[82] The twelfth was a most severe contest, when Arthur penetrated to the hill of Badon.[83] In this engagement, nine hundred and forty fell by his hand alone, no one but the Lord affording him assistance. 

In all these engagements the Britons were successful. For no strength can avail against the will of the Almighty. The more the Saxons were vanquished, the more they sought for new supplies of Saxons from Germany; so that kings, commanders, and military bands were invited over from almost every province. And this practice they continued till the reign of Ida, who was the son of Eoppa, he, of the Saxon race, was the first king in Bernicia, and in Cair Ebrauc (York). 

Wikipedia 

Considering the the size of the HB Arthur makes up only a small of it. Yet even in this early incarnation it touches on many vital aspects of his legend. First of all, there is the ever present thread of the Saxons. The Saxon invasion of Great Britain remains the subject of debates among scholars, and in preparing for this entry I read a great deal about them, though they remain elusive. For one thing, it is not clear whether the Saxons invaded or migrated or when and how (even if) they mingled with the residents Celts, nor is the time frame clear. We can conclude, at least for now, that Saxons came to Britain, and that they were perceived as a threat to the established order.

It's important to note that Arthut was not chosen as (High) King, but as commander, or Dux Bellorum, which literally translates to war leader. Consistent is the great reverence towards him and that he has to gain his position, although this time it seems to be thrusted on him. The number 12 is also siginfiant in that context, but we will get to that later.

Let it suffice to say that most of the battles aren't identifiable or placeable on the map, but one thing stands out: The battle at Gurnion castle. It's description bears semblance to the battle at Mount Badon, as reported in Annales Cambriae (AC). Since the AC is older, some suggest that the battle made it's way into it from the HB, and that the site was changed because it was more readily recognisable. While the battle of Mount Badon is widely accepted as fact, Arthur is not linked to it before the year 820, which contrasts starkly with his supposed pivotal role in it.

All in all, the HB is strongly doubted by most, and we will further look into it in future entries. Aside from its historical (in?)significance, it's a lesson in how the past becomes distorted in retrospect, and how a name might be attached to something it wasn't meant to, and is in consequence robbed of it's weight. Very cryptic, I know, and I wasn't even talking about Arthur himself. Stay tuned!

 

Keeper of stories

I started out with a mention of the Annales Cambriae (AC), and I want to Elaborate further on them.

The AC is a rough time line of the history of the welsh territory (Cambria is the latin name for Wales). This connects it with Arthur in a way I haven't mentioned before: The first stories containing him are of welsh origin, as are a lot of other parts that have been among the most consistently appearing characters and events.

A page from an original manuscript of the Annales Cambriae

Presumably they give us at least a time frame, a reference Point for when Arthur probably lived. Except that they might not. The AC are known to us only through copies, and these copies sometimes omit great lengths of time and even so contradict each other frequently.

There are five known manuscripts that all in all add up to four Independent sources.

The first one, A, is found in a larger work, the Historia Britonum. Since texts then were written by Hand (manuscript is Latin and literally translates to "written by hand") we are able to deduce it's Age by comparing it to other works that are more certainly dated. It is not present in all Versions of the Historia Britonum. That Version of the AC is inserted without title or note that it's an excerpt from another text, and roughly chronicles the latter half of the first millennium. Matters are further complicated because Events are frequently recounted without Dates, leaving the work to us by comparing their General shape to, again, other known occurrences. It was probably written some time between 110 AD and 1300 AD. This is important for later.

Sources B and C actually have the same title (well almost), respectively Annales ab orbe condito adusque A. D. mcclxxxvi and Annales ab orbe condito adusque A. D. mcclxxviii. Those of you knowing their math can see that one recounts two years more, namely until 1288 (the last digit is VIII) instead of 1286 (here it is VI). B starts roughly 60 years before the birth of christ, while C starts at 610 before the birth of Christ as stated by it's author, but the year 671 is more likely. Their title roughly translates to "History from the beginning of the earth to the year xxx" and the name is pretty much a spoiler. They are interesting in that they both are prefaced by the reprinted introduction to the history of the world by one Isidore of Seville. Both texts roughly match A, although C starts to diverge more strongly from B when A ends, less emphasising the events in Wales and focusing more on Great Britain in general. To me C feels like more encompassing, and somehow more global. B is brought to us by Bede's work "minor history", while C was found as part of manuscript from the abbey of Neath, and both were written sometime at the tail end of the 13th century, thus separating them considerably from some of their source material.

Crucial to us because it concerns the subject at hand is a slight difference that B and C share, but which separates them from A.

A: Year 93 (c. 537) The Strife of Camlann in which Arthur and Mordred fell and there was death in Britain and in Ireland.

B/C: Year 93 (c. 537) The Strife of Camlann in which Arthur and Mordred fell

It's not much, but since A is younger than B/C, it's possible that A added a completely fabricated story, and B/C couldn't find evidence for the second part, so they dropped it. After all, you would expect to find some evidence at least for the dying part.

D and E are found in the same manuscript, thus constituting one source between them, but they aren't of particular interest to us, seeing as they only the 12th and and 13th century respectively, and there are no clues for us there. But it's interesting to note that Arthur, fictional or not, was consistently placed in the 6th century, at least by scholars known to us, seeing as he was by and large considered contemporary and well documented throughout the middle ages.

We will examine further sources, among the already mentioned Bede (well, actually the venerable Bede), but don't expect to much. Evidence for Arthur's life is hard to come by, and from here on out the accounts become largely fictional, old welsh texts. After that there follows an account of Geoffrey of Monmouth, and he really is a big one among the various writers. Supposedly he thought he was writing down history, but we will see that here at the latest the fictionalisation begins in earnest.

I'm sorry for the gap between entries, but I really have to do the research from now on, otherwise I might get the facts muddled. I already noticed some of the weak links in my blog when talking to people about it, and I don't want many more mistakes of that kind.

In other news, you guys, how cool is it that we're able to read books old a thousand years and more practically for free? Just cool or extremely cool? You decide! That might sound nerdy, but the point is: A lot of research and work has been done for us, and everyone developing something today is standing on the shoulder of giants.

Think about that...see ya soon!